The future of War?

What will be the future of warfare i.e. the equipment, the men, the forces and the causes of conflict. I'm just looking for speculation from a military point of view and a political point of view?

Depends what kind of war you're talking about - minor local conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan, or serious large scale wars. Really serious wars, comparable to the world wars, will go nuclear pretty well from the start. The trimmings won't matter.

Iv'e always found this quote true and you all probably know it by Albert Einstein. "I don't know what weapons will be used in WWIII but I do know WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones."

Originally posted by Aster Thrax Eupator I reckon that the essential nature of war will always remain the same - as Plato stated - "as long as there is man, there will be war", and unless we see some radical sociological or cultural change - which, let's face it, hasn't ever been radical enough to change the essential nature of mankind's warlike mentality - I doubt it will change. As others above have stipulated, what will change is the technological basis on which it will be fought, and from that basis, it may become so technologically advanced that warfare as we know it changes.

You have a point with that war will continue as we know it forever, however during the course of this century the methods and fields it is employed in will change. For one the internet will become a battlefield of warfare it's self. In addition WMD's and  will become more diverse and widespread along with the likely hood that they will end up in the hands of non-state actors.

Also during this century I think we will see another world war, although one that is less devastating both in terms of human lives and destruction. 

It will certainly be interesting to see how this plays out.

Originally posted by Darius of Parsa Originally posted by Kevin Originally posted by Aster Thrax Eupator I reckon that the essential nature of war will always remain the same - as Plato stated - "as long as there is man, there will be war", and unless we see some radical sociological or cultural change - which, let's face it, hasn't ever been radical enough to change the essential nature of mankind's warlike mentality - I doubt it will change. As others above have stipulated, what will change is the technological basis on which it will be fought, and from that basis, it may become so technologically advanced that warfare as we know it changes. You have a point with that war will continue as we know it forever, however during the course of this century the methods and fields it is employed in will change. For one the internet will become a battlefield of warfare it's self. In addition WMD's and  will become more diverse and widespread along with the likely hood that they will end up in the hands of non-state actors. Also during this century I think we will see another world war, although one that is less devastating both in terms of human lives and destruction.  It will certainly be interesting to see how this plays out. I doubt it.

Barring the use by irrational religious fanatics, I don't think the widespread use of WMD's  would be likely given that it would be meet with some form of equal retribution by the other side.  

Originally posted by gcle2003 Only irrational fanatics (possibly but not necessarily religious) would start another world war. So rational considerations go out the window.   As far as I know France and Britain are still committed to a first-strike nuclear defence policy and have been for 50 years.

That is indeed likely however, the next World War is just as likely if not more so to begin with the actions of a major power like Russia or China.

But still the actions of fanatics is just as likely and I see your point with that.

However I would even justify that many fanatics are suicidal enough to use WMD's in a way s to provoke gurrenteed retribution with the same types of weapons.


Edited by Kevin - 24-Dec-2008 at 17:39

Originally posted by Darius of Parsa The United States and Russia are growing further and further apart. It will start when the rubber band between the two ends breaks.

I doubt it.  Russia is not as powerful at it used to be.  Its system of alliance has fallen.  Its military a shell of its high point in the 80's.


The Russia of 1989's could wipe the floor of the Russia of 2009

There will be two principal kinds of conflict in the future.

A population (with paramilitaries, guerrillas, etc) versus a government military force.

And two (or more) populations fighting each other with irregulars, guerrillas, paramilitaries, terrorists, etc. Usually along ethnic or religious lines.

Irregular forces associated with populations will favour light, cheap, easily manufactured weapons of all kinds - from AK-47s, RPGs, homemade mortars, basic rockets, etc.

Governments will maintain strong conventional forces, but there will be an increasing emphasis on small units and their equipment for land forces, and at sea, there will be an increasing emphasis on light, littoral capabilities. More and more nations will also want to acquire their own strategic airlift capability rather than renting from the US or Russia.

The days of conventional conflict between all but the smallest and poorest nations is over. Economies are too interconnected and much too dependant on global trade to even consider state vs state warfare.

Edited by edgewaters - 27-Dec-2008 at 09:47

Flyingzone, what your wrote was said in 1914, when the worlds two mpost interconnected economies went to war (UK and germany). The economies were so interconnected that the German Battlecruisers used Parsons turbines made in Glasgow.

The interconnectedness of 1914 is not really comparable to the nature of globalized economies in 2008. They weren't even oil economies.